(07-25-2019 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like the Democrats need certain things to happen, if they are to prevail in November 2020.
Higher unemployment
More people losing their jobs
Lower wages
Lower take home pay
Lower stock market
War with either NKorea or Iran or both
Millions of illegal aliens
Drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes
Crop failure
Higher taxes
Racial unrest
In short, they need misery for the American public. Of course, lip service will be paid, but in private, the leadership will rejoice if any or all of these happen, as the only goal is winning.
Not sure that I agree with you about war with Iran/NKorea. I think that might end up being a positive for Trump when it comes to re-election... hey America... how are you feeling about Elizabeth Warren as Commender-in-Chief?
But overall, yes. I don't think the Democrats would be crying if there was a general downturn between now and the election. Not unlike the Republicans would feel if there were a Democrat incumbent in office. Do you think Republican candidates would not have been privately celebrating if the stock market took a dive in March, 2012?
(07-25-2019 07:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.
Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.
And the Dems are supposed to be the group obsessed with race.
![[Image: 297.png]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png)
(07-25-2019 07:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.
Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.
The "I'm not" part may work for the second and third, but unless I'm misconstruing your ******* not for the first.
(07-25-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 07:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.
Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.
And the Dems are supposed to be the group obsessed with race.
Pointing out an ostensible prerequisite is now obsessed with race. Got it. Interestingly the 'oh-so' Republican leaning (sarcasm here) 538.com has an in depth analysis of the 'avenues' that the Democrats are seemingly obsessed about.
Are you not aware of the 'avenue' game being played out explicitly in your camp, or are you just defensive when it is mentioned?
For the base Democratic intersectionality requirement Harris/Buttieg or Harris/Castro looks to be the dream ticket. I dont think they can tick off more than three checkboxes with it this time around.
(07-25-2019 09:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like the Democrats need certain things to happen, if they are to prevail in November 2020.
Higher unemployment
More people losing their jobs
Lower wages
Lower take home pay
Lower stock market
War with either NKorea or Iran or both
Millions of illegal aliens
Drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes
Crop failure
Higher taxes
Racial unrest
In short, they need misery for the American public. Of course, lip service will be paid, but in private, the leadership will rejoice if any or all of these happen, as the only goal is winning.
Not sure that I agree with you about war with Iran/NKorea. I think that might end up being a positive for Trump when it comes to re-election... hey America... how are you feeling about Elizabeth Warren as Commender-in-Chief?
Quite commendable there.
At least we know she wouldnt break any of the Cherokee-United States treaties in her tenure.
Quote:But overall, yes. I don't think the Democrats would be crying if there was a general downturn between now and the election. Not unlike the Republicans would feel if there were a Democrat incumbent in office. Do you think Republican candidates would not have been privately celebrating if the stock market took a dive in March, 2012?
Funny most Republicans actually seem to admire Clinton's terms in office. Best way for a Democrat to fracture the vote, and Republicans will actually do it willingly.
If I thought for a single picosecond that any in the Democratic fold might be better for my wallet I would consider them, to be honest. I would hazard a guess that at least 40 percent of Republican voters would vote otherwise if their pocketbook was enhanced.
But, that doesnt seem to be the siren song of the Democratic party does it? The song most hear is 'more money...... more taxes...... more regulation.....'.
I mean your screech yesterday about 'aggessively attacking the regulatory and administrative state' is pretty much a symptom of the base progressive (Democrats these days, to a very left extent) ideals of nirvana in that respect, eh?
(07-25-2019 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 07:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.
Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.
The "I'm not" part may work for the second and third, but unless I'm misconstruing your ******* not for the first.
It's HER platform, not OUR opinion.
(07-25-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 07:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.
Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.
And the Dems are supposed to be the group obsessed with race.
You forget sexism, and rudeness.
(07-25-2019 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 07:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.
Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.
And the Dems are supposed to be the group obsessed with race.
You forget sexism, and rudeness.
Little quiz for ya:
Which party has had several candidates announce they will pick a person of color or a woman as their running mate if nominated?
Which party regularly levels charges of racism and sexism at others, including their own Speaker of the House?
Which party is always touting their diversity, in lieu of touting their achievements?
QED.
five men to be executed
I oppose the death penalty, but that is not to say that many people do not deserve it. These five all deserve it.
(07-26-2019 09:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]five men to be executed
I oppose the death penalty, but that is not to say that many people do not deserve it. These five all deserve it.
Agreed. As grotesque as the crimes are, I am 100% against the death penalty.
The fact that someone could be innocent, yet sentenced to death, makes it a non-starter for me. Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment. And if there are individuals that can't be rehabilitated, then we keep them imprisoned for their life.
(07-26-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that someone could be innocent, yet sentenced to death, makes it a non-starter for me.
Also, it is no deterrent.
Quote:Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.
There needs to be more focus on on post-release aid, rather than in-jail rehab.
Quote: And if there are individuals that can't be rehabilitated, then we keep them imprisoned for their life.
How would you determine they cannot be rehabbed? Multiple convictions? How many? What levels? What period of time?
(07-24-2019 04:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And while having experience running a business is undoubtedly helpful in the executive branch, Trump is a poster child for how lacking political experience is detrimental. Ideally someone who lacks one of those traits would surround themselves with advisers who fill the void.
But doesn't it seem to you that finding political advisers in Washington is vastly easier than finding people with successful experience running a business willing to put that on the sideline and even take heat over it (have it get bad-mouthed and protested) to work in DC?
Trump's turnover rate in his Cabinet and senior level administration is the highest of any presidential administration since 1980 (which is all this link tracks). It doesn't help having political advisors, or business advisors, if your president doesn't listen to and value their opinions.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/track...istration/
Is that an impeachable offense?
"Impeach. Impeach. Orange Man Bad. Orange Man Bad."
(07-26-2019 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 04:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And while having experience running a business is undoubtedly helpful in the executive branch, Trump is a poster child for how lacking political experience is detrimental. Ideally someone who lacks one of those traits would surround themselves with advisers who fill the void.
But doesn't it seem to you that finding political advisers in Washington is vastly easier than finding people with successful experience running a business willing to put that on the sideline and even take heat over it (have it get bad-mouthed and protested) to work in DC?
Trump's turnover rate in his Cabinet and senior level administration is the highest of any presidential administration since 1980 (which is all this link tracks). It doesn't help having political advisors, or business advisors, if your president doesn't listen to and value their opinions.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/track...istration/
Is that an impeachable offense?
"Impeach. Impeach. Orange Man Bad. Orange Man Bad."
The Dems are so concerned with impeachment, that they ignore what is and isn't impeachable. I think the last attempt just said he is unfit to be President, which I guess means he is rude and crude.
I think the time for impeachment as a politcal weapon to get him out of office is past. maybe they should be looking more to defeat him at the polls, but don't tell them that. I am perfectly fine with them wasting their time and money on a dead end.
(07-26-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that someone could be innocent, yet sentenced to death, makes it a non-starter for me.
Also, it is no deterrent.
Quote:Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.
There needs to be more focus on on post-release aid, rather than in-jail rehab.
Quote: And if there are individuals that can't be rehabilitated, then we keep them imprisoned for their life.
How would you determine they cannot be rehabbed? Multiple convictions? How many? What levels? What period of time?
Didn't realize I was gonna get quizzed on my general feelings about my feelings on the prison system. What gives?
(07-26-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that someone could be innocent, yet sentenced to death, makes it a non-starter for me.
Also, it is no deterrent.
Quote:Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.
There needs to be more focus on on post-release aid, rather than in-jail rehab.
Quote: And if there are individuals that can't be rehabilitated, then we keep them imprisoned for their life.
How would you determine they cannot be rehabbed? Multiple convictions? How many? What levels? What period of time?
Didn't realize I was gonna get quizzed on my general feelings about my feelings on the prison system. What gives?
I thought when you said this...
"Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment. And if there are individuals that can't be rehabilitated, then we keep them imprisoned for their life."
...that you HAD given us your general feelings on the prison system. Touchy much?
In any case, my general feelings are that we need to do more to rehab people both in prison and after release. Specifically, there needs to be more jobs made available to ex-cons.
I have heard your "We give up on you" solution before. It has some merit, but where to draw the lines is the problem. Four felonies? Ten misdemeanors? One murder? Orange hair?
If you don't want to be quizzed on your opinions, don't give them.
(07-24-2019 04:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Trump's turnover rate in his Cabinet and senior level administration is the highest of any presidential administration since 1980 (which is all this link tracks). It doesn't help having political advisors, or business advisors, if your president doesn't listen to and value their opinions.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/track...istration/
Is that a projection? It seems a significant number of people here were promoted.... not in the cabinet, but on the staff. I suspect he's dealing with a vastly larger and more 'political' group of people than he ever has before.... and many of the best available people aren't the sort of person Trump would want.... running as an outsider.
Ignoring that someone ran to 'fight' against the swamp, who then had to hire at least a decent number of people whose primary experience was working with and in the swamp... or that someone who was a good person and effective in the real world, who cannot maintain that performance in politics really shouldn't be unexpected or so generally defined. Higher turnover somewhat flies in the face of what you're describing else it would result in ridiculous amounts of people with charges of impropriety...
I'm not defending Trump... I understand he can be difficult to work for and doesn't trust a lot of people.... I'm just challenging the idea that this is a clear sign of someone who doesn't listen to his advisers or value their input. Maybe a decent number of these people needed to be replaced.
(07-26-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that someone could be innocent, yet sentenced to death, makes it a non-starter for me.
Also, it is no deterrent.
Quote:Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.
There needs to be more focus on on post-release aid, rather than in-jail rehab.
Quote: And if there are individuals that can't be rehabilitated, then we keep them imprisoned for their life.
How would you determine they cannot be rehabbed? Multiple convictions? How many? What levels? What period of time?
Didn't realize I was gonna get quizzed on my general feelings about my feelings on the prison system. What gives?
For me it's about the idea that what sounds good on paper isn't necessarily practical. If you can't define the latter, how do you accomplish it? If it can't be accomplished, why would you 'want' it?
For me, the answer seems to be to not convict someone who could be innocent as opposed to deciding that this is an impossible task.
My issue with the 'rehabilitation vs something else' is again about what that looks like in practice. We already have 'good behavior' reductions in sentences/paroles which of course could/should and I feel, do involve some analysis of rehabilitation.
(07-26-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, I'd rather our criminal justice system be more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.
There needs to be more focus on on post-release aid, rather than in-jail rehab.
Rehab, post-release aid, and restitution all need to be a bigger part of our criminal justice system.
Y'all will be surprised, but I am against the death penalty. But for some odd reasons.
1. It is far cheaper to toss someone into prison for life/no parole (100k for 30 years v. the roughly 10 million spent to put someone down via appeals, that is in a cheap state like Texas).
2. It deprives the defendant of the 'last blaze of glory'. All the time I was in California, there were exactly four executions -- each was circus. One of them was an absolute asshat (a Crips majordomo) named Tookie Williams who was convicted of four murders, but was linked to an amazing amount of very violent crime. In all of the carnival there was zero consideration for the victims --- but a metric ton of coverage of the black power salutes outside San Qunetin and everything else.
Contrast that state sponsored death with those of even more notoriety --- Manson and Dahmer. Instead of the incessant headlines that surrounded the execution of Tookie Williams, those utterly contemptible humans died with scarcely a word being mentioned. I call that true justice. That same 'one-liner' end will be the final statement of the Unabomber's life, the shoe bomber's life, Ramzi Yousef, Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City bomber), Eric Rudolph (Atlanta Olympics bomber), and El Chapo.
3. Life with parole is a far worse sentence than death. Manson spent 46 years behind bars, with hardly any doubt he would never see the light of day as a free man.
Or take the case of Ted Kazinsky, the Unabomber. He will end his days in an orange jumpsuit in the SuperMax --- 24 years and counting. I hope it is 40 and that guy dies in his mid-90's, forever knowing he forfeit his right to ever see a free day in the remainder of his life. I think that would be appropriate punishment for the Boston Marathon bomber as well.